Summary: The Bombay High Court has made a decision on a group of cases about where Labour and Industrial Courts have the authority to hear cases under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU Act). The court explained that the place where an employer makes decisions can be important.
The cases were about whether the place where the employee works or the place where the employer makes decisions should decide which court can hear the case under the MRTU Act.
Before, the court in the GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. case said that only where the employee works should decide which court can hear the case. This meant if an employee was moved or fired outside Maharashtra, the courts in Maharashtra couldn't hear the case.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Nandram vs. Garware Polyester Limited, said that if decisions are made at an employer's main office, then courts in that place can hear the case. This didn't match with the GlaxoSmithKline decision.
"The decision to terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad."
The Bombay High Court decided that the Supreme Court's decision in Nandram changed the old GlaxoSmithKline decision. This means both where the employee works and where the employer makes decisions can decide which court can hear the case.
Appeal No. 585 of 2009: The court reopened the complaint of Manish Badkas, a medical representative, to the Labour Court, noting the decision to fire him was made in Mumbai.
Writ Petition No. 433 of 2015: The court reversed the Industrial Court's dismissal of a complaint because it said the court didn't have the authority, and sent it back to be considered.
Writ Petition No. 798 of 2008: The court agreed that the Mumbai Labour Court had the authority and postponed the hearing on the details of the case.
Writ Petition No. 1643 of 2010: The court reopened the reference to the Labour Court in Mumbai, pointing out that the employer's actions were managed from Mumbai.
Writ Petition No. 2477 of 2010: The court said the issue about where the case should be heard was brought up too late and reopened the complaint for consideration.
Writ Petition No. 2893 of 2015: The court overturned the Industrial Court's decision and reopened the complaint to be decided on the details.
The Bombay High Court's decision shows a balanced way to decide where cases can be heard, considering both where the employee is and where the employer makes decisions. This decision is meant to make it fairer for employees to get justice when they claim unfair treatment at work.
"Issues of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided solely on the basis of the employee's situs at the time the unfair labour practice was allegedly committed."
The court's decision is an important step in clarifying where cases can be heard under the MRTU Act, making sure employees have ways to seek justice in the right legal setting.
